Robby Bowie

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (allkindsofsocial.com) their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (click the up coming web site) and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.